If you read the earlier post, you'll know I had some viewing problems with Heartless which may well have influenced how much I did or didn't enjoy the film. So with that said, here goes....
Firstly, Heartless is horror film, not a genre I would go for but as a Philip Ridley-film starring Jim Sturgess and with a number of large cameo's filled by noted Brit actors such as Timothy Spall and Eddie Marsan, I was a bit curious.
*POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS* It's set in familiar Ridley territory, London's East End, and centres on Jim Sturgess' character Jamie who has a large birthmark on his face. Bullied, teased and stared at he is withdrawn, quiet and self conscious seeing little good in the world, a view that is confirmed when his mother is brutally murdered by a local gang.
He then meets a Papa B who claims that nothing is random and violence creates a necessary suffering from which beauty can be appreciated. Jamie does a deal with Papa B who gets rid of his birthmark in exchange Jamie will commit some random, mild act of chaos at some point in the future.
With the birthmark gone, the world is beautiful for Jamie or so he thinks until Papa B's administrator (Marsen) calls to give him his instructions for his his side of the deal which turns out to be a gruesome murder.
It is a dark film employing many of the tried and tested tools in which to jangle the audiences' nerves and I'm sure I would have fallen for it all had I been sat in a dark cinema rather than on my sofa on a bright Sunday afternoon.
The theme of selling your soul is not a new one and there is much that is allegorical about Heartless which I quite enjoyed. But I felt that jarred with the horror elements some of which seemed to be thrown in 'just because' (Papa B eats the face of the severed head of Jamie's new friend which is still alive, for example).
Maybe it's supposed to be a horror film for those that like that form of overblown, grotesque violence but want something thought provoking at the same time. I'd rather have had the thought provoking without the horror. But saying that there is definitely a note of Ridley's cleverness in the details and twists and I'd maybe watch it again when it's on telly for free, just to run my head around the ideas a bit more.
Mark Kermode is a Ridley fan and says he really liked it. Here are some other reviews:
Cath Clarke in the Guardian gave it three stars saying: Philip Ridley returns with a delirious London nightmare that might be
overcooked, pretentious even, but is nonetheless beguilingly imaginative
and genuinely scary in places.
Time Out London gives it four stars describing it as a "fiercely imaginative urban fairy tale".
It got 67% from Rotten Tomatoes UK
And finally there is an interesting interview with Philip Ridley over on indielondon.com about what influenced the film and the importance of getting Jim Sturgess for the role of Jamie.
Comments